Ted Grant

Labour’s foreign policy—A contribution to discussion in the Labour Party

“Problems of
Foreign Policy,” the pamphlet published by Transport House with a foreword by
Morgan Phillips, unofficially states the position of the Labour Party
leadership on the issues of “Britain’s” world relations.

The
outstanding flaw from a Socialist standpoint is that while it purports
to deal with everything, yet it does not touch on the fundamental mainsprings
of world society. And it is these fundamentals which mould the policy and
programmes of classes, parties and states in the present epoch.

The pamphlet
declaims, “What do Socialists want in world affairs? Ever since the Socialist
Movement was born its aims have been lasting peace and universal prosperity,
based on justice between the nations and within each nation.”

This somewhat
vague formulation does contain a kernel of truth, but is not sufficiently sharp
and clear. Foreign policy cannot be separated from home policy. The one is
determined by the same laws and principles as the other. Foreign policy is the
continuation outside the national boundaries of policies and interests at home.
Both are determined basically by class interests and needs. It is these
and not the abstract principles laid down in the pamphlet which condition the
policies of all states.

While
correctly stressing the interdependence of all countries and all peoples in
modern times, the pamphlet makes no attempt to show the underlying cause of
world tensions and the social solution to the problems.

Cause of world wars

While
referring to the two world wars—to the cruelty, poverty, disease, ignorance of
two-thirds of the people of the world and to the periodic economic crises and
mass unemployment of the remaining third, they comment:

“The brotherhood of man, however near we may have
approached it in our national life in Britain, seems a hopeless dream for
the world as a whole.

“Yet our very survival depends on giving that
dream some reality—and quickly.”

At the same
time they say:

“First, and
most important of all, we must prevent a Third World War. Second. We must win
political and economic justice for the underprivileged peoples of the world.
Neither of these aims can be secured unless we can move beyond crude power
politics to an international order in which the use of economic and military
power is governed by the rule of law.”

Leaving aside
the question of how far the brotherhood of man has been achieved in Britain, a
wringing of hands and sorrowful lamentations at the cruelty of our period, at
the horrors of the two world wars, will only serve to befuddle the reader
instead of providing a way for the understanding of these phenomena. And only
such an understanding would arm the rank and file with the concrete ideas with
which to combat these evils. This is the “rearmament” which Labour needs.

The two world
wars, crises, disease, unemployment, ignorance, poverty, fascism, Stalinism and
the other ills which afflict the planet do not find their cause in moral
derelictions or insufficient sentimentality but in basic economic laws.
These laws in the past, reflecting the greed for gain on the part of the
capitalists and landowners, however mean and ignoble their motives, helped to
develop the powers of man over nature, of the modern national state, and of the
technical possibility of furnishing abundance and a full life for all.

Private ownership and national states
responsible

However the
development of capitalism has meant that the powers of production created by
the labour of the working class have developed beyond the bounds of private
ownership of the means of production and the national state. These have now
reached a stage where from being a means for the development of the economy
they have now become monstrous fetters hindering the development of society and
mankind. It is the blind working of these economic factors which have produced
the crisis of our time and the convulsions of the last fifty years. To prevent
a third world war it is necessary to understand clearly the cause of the last
two world wars.

The First
World War was not caused by the wickedness of the Kaiser but basically by the
struggle for markets between Britain
and Germany,
and the economic impasse in which capitalism found itself. The world having
been divided between the Great Powers, the young German capitalism could only
expand at the expense of her old rivals. Finding no way out of their
contradictions, German, French and Russian Imperialism took to the road of war
in an endeavour to escape the dilemma posed by the growth of economic forces
which they could not master. The Second World War was not caused by the
insanity of Hitler or the lust for aggression or militarism on the part of the
German people; but by an aggravation of the economic antagonisms and
contradictions which had led to the First World War.

That this is
so in reality is shown by the change in line of the Allied Imperialists towards
the German people since the end of the war. From being natural murderers they
have become democratic allies, from Butcher Birds of Europe they have become a
bulwark against Bolshevism. Thus the cause of the war, in reality, lay in the
insoluble contradictions of European and world capitalism.

Without the
removal of these causes a continuation in aggravated form of the underlying
factors can only have the same disastrous consequences, if not worse, the
complete destruction of civilisation due to the very factors of technical
progress which intensify these contradictions. Thus for the workers of Britain
and the people of the world the problem can be posed simply, a removal of the
fetters on production as listed above, or the uncontrolled forces of capitalism
will plunge the world into incalculable horrors of destruction.

The “rule of law” or class interest?

There cannot
be a so-called “rule of law” or an “international order” so long as there are
conflicting class interests within the nations and clashing national
capitalisms. To preach the abandonment of crude power politics and to advocate
only the “ good “ use of economic and military power is to fly in the face of
history. As well suggest that the lion cease eating the lamb and eat grass
instead.

Crude power
politics are caused by the economic interests of the contending powers of the
world. That they dominate, even if unconsciously, the thinking of the authors,
is shown by the references to “Britain’s” policy in the Middle East, in
relation to German competition, to “Germany’s” “national” policies in relation
to trade with Russia and her endeavours to dominate Europe.

It is this
which gives an erroneous basis to the conceptions outlined in this pamphlet.
The interests of the workers of Britain
are no different to those of the workers of the Middle
East. The interests of the workers of England
are identical with those of Germany,
America, Russia, Asia
and of the world. But the interests of the rulers of these countries whether
“enemies” or “allies” are in conflict with each other and in the case of Russia
fundamentally so.

It is these
basic class conceptions which the Marxist analysis of capitalist society and
its laws have provided as the means for solving the problem of how to obtain
peace, plenty and fraternal collaboration. The brotherhood of man remains
impracticable and utopian, a “hopeless dream” if it is to be achieved by the
respect for the rule of law and renouncing of power politics by the cannibals
of big business, the tigers of high finance and the unbridled bureaucrats in
Moscow.

Today, as
always, what determines the policy of American capitalism is the class
interests and profits of the American ruling class. It is this which dictates
their “altruistic” aid to other countries. At the same time, the last decade or
two, has revealed, as far as the Moscow bureaucracy is concerned, that they are
no more interested in Socialism than American Imperialism is in Democracy; but
on the contrary are concerned solely with the interests of the caste of
usurpers which seized control of the Russian Revolution under the peculiar
conditions of isolation and backwardness.

Socialist United
States of Europe

The nature of
the problem has even been forced on the capitalist politicians, scientists and
thinkers. They recognise that the present division of the world into
conflicting national states, when distance has been abolished and the furthest
continent is but a day or two’s span from the metropolitan centres, belongs in
reality to the era of the stage coach and the economic organisation that went
with it. But recognition of the problem solves nothing for them. Churchill,
while in Opposition, could bleat about the need for a United Europe, but as
Prime Minister is compelled to reject such Utopian dreams and stand fast for
the needs of national British capitalism. Under capitalism, the Federation of
Europe—the Federation of the world remains a utopian chimera. Only the
overthrow of capitalism can lead to a Federated United
States of Europe and the
world. That is the sole road to permanent peace and plenty.

It is this
fundamental criterion which must stand as the basis of the foreign policy of
the Labour Party if it wishes to pursue a Socialist course. The pamphlet
proudly boasts that:

“Throughout
its history the Labour Party has always had a paramount aim in world affairs—to
replace the international anarchy by a world order and to build a system in
which disputes between states would be settled by arbitration under the rule of
law and not by clash of physical force. But unlike some of its predecessors,
the Labour Party has never believed that legal instruments alone will be
sufficient to produce a world society. Nations cannot be compelled to work with
one another by any set of rules. But they can be taught to work with one
another by learning in practice the advantage of common action for a common
cause. The Labour Party has always sought to encourage nations to work together
for concrete ends.”

Always there
is the blurring of the antagonisms within the nations and between them. It is
possible to settle the disputes between states only by removing the economic cause
underlying them. The ruling classes co-operate or fight only when it suits or
safeguards their interests. Only when it suits their class needs will they
“learn” the advantages of common action for a common cause. The pamphlet claims
that Labour Government “moved a long way towards creating the framework of a
world society. Inside the United Nations it worked steadfastly to uphold the
rule of law and to promote international co-operation for constructive ends.”

“United” Nations a fiction

How can there
be a genuine common action or a real common cause between conflicting
capitalist interests and the fundamental antagonism between the capitalist
world and Russia?
The United Nations like the League of Nations
before it remains merely a forum for the settlement of secondary and
unimportant conflicts. By the nature of society it could not hope to be
anything more. That is why the victorious Allies in order to arrive at the
possibility of reconstructing a refurbished version of the League
of Nations had even to clip the nominal powers possessed by its
assembly and introduce the Great Power Veto. Thus any decision which such a
Power opposes as of fundamental importance to it, is nullified despite the fact
that all the other Powers might support it. This means that all the “great
questions” have to be decided by the bargaining between the Powers in secret
and partly open diplomacy. In the last analysis, under given conditions, when
the issue is big enough, they will resort to force as in the past. The United
Nations is even less effective than the old League of
Nations. Shining new upholstery on old and rotting furniture does
not restore strength to the structure.

World
relations today, as always, are dictated by the greatest Powers. The
fundamental axis around which world relations revolve and which dictates all
the considerations at the United Nations, is the clash between Russia and America who emerged as the two
major world Powers after the Second World War. Sugary illusions and sonorous
platitudes about the need for good-will and co-operation cannot explain the
real problem. The actions of the Labour Government were, unfortunately, largely
along the lines of the policies of previous Conservative Governments which
Churchill approvingly supported. The boast that the Labour Government stood up
steadfastly against Soviet expansion (with vociferous applause from the
Conservatives) while America
was “unwilling” to take her share of the burden is monstrous. British
Imperialism relied on the Labour Government to do this job and it secured the
aid of America—Loan,
Marshall Aid—precisely because of this.

[As British
imperialism in the past used its mighty] power (1)
to get the other states to do her bidding, so America pursues the same role. “America,” or
rather American Imperialism, intervened actively when she could not use any
other means. That is all.

To fight
“Russian expansionism” by rearmament merely adds grist to the mill of the
Russian bureaucracy. Nearly every arms race has ended ultimately in war.
Neither the American capitalists, nor the Russian bureaucrats, nor the British
capitalists and diplomats are interested in war or peace as such. Threats can
only induce counter threats and in the end Armageddon. Policies of this sort
can only have one end. A “negotiate or else” policy cannot prevent conflict.

It is significant that always the appeal is to rulers of Russia or the rulers of America, never
to the working class of these countries or our own.

Arms will
have no effect on Russia
except to persuade the bureaucracy to redouble their arms programme and vice
versa. This is a vicious circle where each side seeks to “persuade” the other
by bigger and better armaments but cannot find a road to peace. An appeal to
the Russian workers, however, could only have an effect on the, basis of a
struggle for the overthrow of capitalism at home and abroad. To show them that
abroad, they are not facing Imperialist Capitalism in a democratic disguise,
but a real workers’ democracy with a nationalised economy and economic control
and planning in the interests of the masses; without bureaucratic misrule,
terror and a secret police. A real internationalist policy dictated in the
interests of all the workers of the world, not that of Wall Street and the City
of London. Such
a policy would echo and rekindle the revolutionary enthusiasm of the early days
of the Russian Revolution and lead swiftly to the overthrow of Stalin.

Only a
joining together of the workers of all lands can provide a Socialist solution
to the problems facing the world. Such a socialist policy cannot be based on
collaboration with “America,”
i.e., the Wall Street bankers and industrialists as the pamphlet advocates.
“Effective” work with the capitalist Government of the U.S. can only
be effective work in the interests of British and American big business.

The power gap

The pamphlet
recognises that “Britain,”
i.e., British Imperialism has lost even the strength that it had managed to
retain after the First World War.

The thread of
continuity of British foreign policy is implicitly admitted as having been
carried on by the Labour Government. There was no sharp break with the past.
Now they wish to bring up “Britain’s”
physical strength to be equal to her international commitments. “Dangerous
consequences” particularly in the Middle East and Asia, have followed the
recognition, they say, of Britain’s
weaknesses.

Here we see
the angle from which the problem is viewed. Instead of welcoming the struggle
of the peoples of the Middle East and Asia for
freedom from colonial exploitation, whether British or any other, to them this
has meant only “dangerous consequences”! Dangerous consequences to whom? ! To
the peoples seeking their freedom?—to the British workers?—or the money lenders
of the City of London?
To pose the question correctly from a socialist point of view is immediately
to see the answer correctly.

Having
sprinkled some holy water in the introduction, by vague generalities, the
reality of the leadership’s position peeps through in the latter section. “Britain’s
influence in the world will depend increasingly on her physical strength both
in military and economic terms.”

Here is the
naked voice of harsh reality—of the power politics which they have condemned
from a moral point of view. Physical force whether military or economic, the
one being dependent on the other, is the final court of reference. But again,
which Britain?

Here we see
where the appeal to so-called reality ends. Either one practically and
realistically bases one’s policy on the material relationship of forces and
organises to change that relationship nationally and internationally by relying
and appealing to the Socialist consciousness of the world working class or one
becomes a tool of the English and American ruling class or of the Bureaucracy
in Moscow. There is no other course in the struggle between irreconcilable
class and national forces.

And for a
Socialist—for a Marxist there is one force more mighty than atom bombs, more
mighty than tanks or bombing planes—the force of the Socialist Revolution, of
the organised solidarity of the international working class. The mighty mole of
the revolution which gives pause to all the tyrants and rulers of the world—of
this there is not a word in an allegedly realist pamphlet.

Prattle about
moral ideas and the United Nations, Britain’s
this, America’s that, Russia’s fear and Germany’s aspirations all jumbled
up together; but never a word on the need for international solidarity of the
world’s workers against the world’s rulers. Nowhere—not a single sentence—not a
breath on the power of the ideas of socialism, of fraternity stretching beyond
the frontiers and national boundaries, as the only force that can cut through
the intrigues, manoeuvres and horse-deals of the United Nations.

Problems for the future

Having with
what the Germans call “real-politik” settled the problems of the past, the
pamphlet “realistically” studies the “Problems for the Future.” This is divided
into sections and for the purposes of convenience in the commentary, we can
largely accept these subdivisions.

To start
with, they lament: “At some of the wartime conferences between the Great
Powers, America tended to
make concessions to Russia,
often at the expense of Britain.”
Apparently the naïve Americans didn’t understand what was going on. How wicked
to make concessions to totalitarian Russia
at the expense of democratic Britain.
In reality it was the old game of power politics at work. No one could be sure
what shape the relationship of forces would take after the war.

And it is
this, together with the relationship of forces at the end of the war which
explains the policies of all the participants.

“Labour government guides Americans”

However the
pamphlet can do better than this…“The Labour Government succeeded in guiding America towards
a better under-understanding of her interests (!) and responsibilities (!)
abroad. From America’s intervention in Greece in 1947 up to the outbreak of war
in Korea in 1950, America’s policy in Europe and elsewhere was very similar to
that of Britain. But from the outbreak of the Korean War onwards, America showed a growing tendency to act
contrary to British advice, particularly in Asia.
It should be added, however, that in diverging from British policy the American
Government was often acting under heavy pressure from Congress contrary to its
own opinion.”

The picture
of Socialist Attlee didactically lecturing the representatives of the Wall
Street tycoons and millionaires as to their interests is ludicrous. Their
responsibilities are to the interests of American capitalism and nothing else.
Where their policies are similar to those of Britain it merely indicates that
their interests are parallel on those particular issues. Where they have
diverged, it is a question of conflicting interests or a difference of view as
to what policy would serve best the interest of British and world capitalism.

Thus America has
backed the most “undemocratic” and reactionary forces such as those of Chiang
Kai Shek, Franco and Syngman Rhee. America’s increasing intervention
in world affairs is not dictated by the advice of the Labour Government, or for
that matter the Churchill Government, but by an assessment of what policies and
commitments would suit the interests of Wall Street best.

It is this,
which makes so shameful the argument in this pamphlet that “…many of the Labour
Party’s most important objectives in world affairs depend on America assuming,
not fewer responsibilities than she has already, but more. The whole world
would benefit if America
accepted greater responsibility for the security and prosperity of the Middle
East and Southern Asia.”

America’s policy in the Middle East and
Southern Asia, like her policy everywhere else will be guided not by the hand
of Downing Street or Transport House, but by what will be considered from first
to last the needs and interests of monopoly capital in America.

Soviet Union

The pamphlet
lumps together the Soviet Union under Lenin and the Soviet
Union under Stalin. The fact that in the early days the foreign
policy of the Soviet Union was based on the
needs and interests of the world working class and of International Socialism
finds no mention in its pages.

Today, the
policies of the Stalinist counter-revolution in Russia like those of Imperialism
are based largely on power politics. They manipulate the Communist Parties of
the world in the interests of the Kremlin oligarchy. They unhesitatingly
sacrifice one section of the workers after another in their selfish and
anti-working class interests. Where possible they will expand, not to serve the
interests of Socialism, but of the Russian official caste. However, because of
the nationalisation of the entire economy they have not the economic
contradictions which drive Imperialism to expand and which have led to wars in
the past(*). The unreality of the pamphlet, its dreamlike character, is shown
by the failure to analyse the cleavages between the Russian bureaucratic caste
on the one side and the masses on the other. Nor for the matter of that does
the pamphlet recognise clearly enough colonial exploitation and oppression of
the peoples in the East and Africa, nor the national oppression of minorities
in the U.S.S.R., and of the countries of Eastern Europe.

The status quo

As always
they appeal to the status quo, now the one established in 1948 in Europe. But by its very nature, in power politics the
status quo can only be maintained so long as the relationship of forces which
it expresses at the given time remains in being. Inevitably the strength of the
powers industrially, and consequently militarily and socially, must change. The
policy based on the given relationship of forces must collapse once the forces
which gave rise to it change.

If the
working class of Britain
trails behind the policy of British Imperialism—past, present and future—then
the workers of Russia will
cling to the Russian bureaucracy on the one hand and the workers of America will be
pushed behind their rulers on the other.

Vaguely the
document…“hope(s) that the Soviet regime will itself undergo some change,
particularly in the period which follows Stalin’s departure from power.
Certainly if a struggle for power then ensues in the Kremlin the Western World
may find a good opportunity for appealing to the moderate wing by offering
economic help in return for political co-operation.”

This sounds
like the hopes enunciated by the officials in Washington. But it is hardly a socialist
policy.

A Socialist
policy would be based on an appeal for the overthrow of Stalinism and a return
to Socialist Democracy. A fraternal international co-operation on the basis of
a nationalised economy with democracy in Russia
and with a similar situation in Britain.
Here again we see how foreign policy is absolutely dependent on home policy.

Western
Europe

“British
policy towards Western Europe was firmly fixed
by the Labour Government and there’s no sign that the Conservatives intend to
change it.”

Surely there
must be something wrong with a policy which the Conservatives, the
representatives of high finance, carry on without any important changes. How
can such a policy by any stretch of the imagination be conceived of as
socialist? How can such a policy which admits as the pamphlet does, that it
requires the active intervention of America on the European continent,
be a policy in the interests of the European or American workers?

The rotten
basis of the so-called continental community established under the pressure of Britain and America,
is shown by the jockeying (casually mentioned in the pamphlet itself) between
Western Germany, France and
the Benelux countries. In other words, all the
incantations and high moral principles fall away in face of the naked reality
of capitalist power politics. Even in face of the mortal danger from mighty Russia (a
workers’ state even if degenerated) they do not and cannot trust each other,
but see things from the viewpoint of their national capitalist classes.

To its shame,
despite covering phrases in the introduction, this exposition of Labour policy
also takes for granted the manoeuvres and balancing of capitalist power politics
as a natural basis on which to start.

“In the first
place, with overseas commitments greater than pre-war (!), Britain cannot spare enough power for Europe to
counterbalance Germany
unless America
joins her there.” And again, “If Britain once took the step of committing
herself permanently on the Continent of Europe, without America, by
joining a European Army, for instance, those Americans who favour withdrawing
their troops, would be greatly encouraged. Britain might then be left alone to
face the double dangers of Soviet expansion and German domination.”

What a
miserable picture of relations between countries. Here we have it all in its
hideous clarity.

On a
capitalist basis and the acceptance of capitalism at home and abroad, there
cannot be anything else but a jockeying for position and a struggle between
“dear allies.” This in its turn with the further aggravation of capitalist
contradictions [will] inevitably leading to a new catastrophe. What spark of
socialism is left in this policy?

Germany

The pamphlet
devotes a special section to Germany.
And the fate of Germany
with her strategic position is undoubtedly of world importance. But again and
again it identifies the national capitalist interests with those of the working
class. And into the bargain, not for Britain
alone, but calmly assumes the same for other countries of Western
Europe as well.

The pamphlet
remarks, “By the beginning of 1952 Germany
had already become the strongest single continental Power and was beginning to
compete effectively in exports with Britain
both in Europe and overseas.”

In other
words the same process is beginning as that which led to World War I, and World
War II. The race for markets and sources of raw material is beginning all over
again as it must on a capitalist basis. But from a socialist point of view the
solution to this nightmare of competition leading to unemployment and war, can
only lie in the collaboration of the workers of Germany
and Britain
against the capitalists of both countries.

Such a policy
would involve struggling against the capitalists everywhere and against the
myth of capitalist federation. Not to retreat as the document has done round
the banner of national capitalism, but to struggle for a federation of a United
Socialist Europe. That is a sober and realistic policy as against the
reactionary dream of reconciling the irreconcilable national capitalist
interests of Britain, Europe
and America.

Squaring the imperialist circle

Squaring the
circle is a simple job in comparison with the squaring of incompatible
Imperialist interests.

Thus the
document continues, “In the second place, Germany has no automatic identity
of interest with Atlantic powers. She can best obtain national unity by an
agreement with the Soviet Union, which would also give her opportunities of
industrial expansion into Eastern Europe which
are part of her national tradition.”

The document
“realistically” examines the happy possibility of “keeping Germany permanently
disarmed under a Four-Power Occupation as at present” and then rejects it not
for socialist reasons but because it might later mean the withdrawal of
American troops 3,000 miles and of Russian troops only 50 miles.

It goes on to
say, It is indeed unrealistic to believe that any steps can now be taken to
prevent Germany
from becoming once again a great power in its own right. The Only question
still relevant is how to ensure that a powerful Germany
works with the West rather than with Russia or for any selfish national
aggrandisement.”

Here is
summed up the impotent utopianism of a policy which bases itself on balancing
between nations instead of relying on the mighty power of the working class at
home and abroad. A powerful capitalist Germany will obviously attempt to
play off the Western bloc against the Eastern bloc for its own ends. But a
democratic socialist Germany
with a democratic socialist Britain
would offer the hand of friendship to the workers of America against their capitalist
masters, and to the Russian workers against the totalitarian bureaucracy of
Stalin. Against an appeal to their real interests, not all the armed might in
the world could prevail.

The simplest
way is the realistic way. Not this horse-deal, not that bribe, to national
capitalist interests can solve the problem of peace and security; but only
Socialist Internationalism, the only practical policy to secure these benefits
for the workers.

Middle East

In dealing
with particular sections of the globe, the real thoughts underlying the cloudy
formulations of the Labour leaders break through. Adopting a “statesmanlike”
attitude they endeavour to assess the social, political and economic conflicts,
always from the viewpoint of “Britain,”
i.e., British Imperialist interests.

The pamphlet
remarks sadly…“The Middle East is the one area where the Labour Government did
not succeed in laying firm foundations for future policy.”

Why was this
so? Because of the tiny groups of wealthy magnates who control the governments
and…“too often show themselves at once selfish, corrupt and incompetent.”

And again:
“The one political feeling easily aroused is nationalism. And this usually
means violent hatred of Britain,
which for many years has been the dominant power throughout the Middle East.”

Why this is
so is not explained. The bleeding of the peoples of the Middle
East for the benefit of the strategic and economic interests of
the British ruling class is the real reason why the anger of the peoples is
directed against British Imperialism. After having explained the role of the
corrupt and degenerate feudal lords who batten on the misery of the workers and
peasants of the area, they do not advocate a socialist solution to this
problem. They comment sadly that any aid designed to raise living standards in
this area would disappear into the casinos of Monte Carlo rather than be used for
development projects. But this is conceived of as part of the price that would
be necessary to guard “…their (Middle East
countries) security against Soviet attack…(which)…can only be assured by
outside powers.” (Our emphasis.)

Like all other
problems of foreign policy the point of departure provides the key to the
answer. A socialist policy would base itself on the sweeping away of the
antiquated structure of these states and the organisation of a Middle Eastern
Federation on the basis of the destruction of capitalism and landlordism in the
area. Such a Federation, basing itself on a socialist policy, would be
invulnerable to attack from any quarter.

The motives
behind the suggestion to raise the standard of living are naively presented, when
it is stated, “At present Britain
is the only foreign power directly involved in protecting the Middle
East from aggression. If she tries to maintain her position there
without the consent of the local peoples the cost of doing so will soon become
prohibitive.”

This speaks
for itself. At the same time the suggestion is made once again to redress the
balance of forces by an appeal to American Imperialism. Neither “Britain” nor “France” can afford the resources
needed for the defence of this, in addition to other areas.

The Far East

The attitude
towards the Chinese Revolution and the developing national and social
revolution of all Asia, is not one of welcoming the destruction of Feudalism
and Capitalism and the weakening of the Imperialist interests throughout the
Eastern world; but is in fact a grudging acceptance of the realities of the
Chinese Revolution, in order to try and balance China against Russia.

Guardedly
they agree that the intervention of China in the Korean war may have
been occasioned by “Western mistakes.” But here again, it is a question of the
resources and policies of British Imperialism.

In this the
Tory Government has largely continued the policy which it inherited from the
Labour Government.

The pamphlet
argues a whole series of possibilities in relation to the Far
East. A sample of this being…“Should Britain and America therefore
pledge themselves to resist Chinese aggression in Indo-China, or would this
provoke the aggression it was intended to deter, and so tie down Western forces
in a war they could not hope to win?”

The Far East like all other regions is viewed from the narrow
interests of British Imperialism.

“But in the
long run China
is the one Communist country which may succeed in following Tito by breaking
away from Russian influence. British policy should always be directed to this
end, though Communist China might be no less a problem in the Far East as an
independent power than as an ally of the Soviet Union.”

Instead of
seeing the historic Chinese Revolution, however distorted and deformed by
Stalinism, as a step towards a Socialist Federation of Asia and of the world,
they look for a means of playing off one Stalinist gang against another.
Instead of working for political revolution—in China and Russia to supplement
the social revolution—instead of working for the overthrow of capitalism by the
social revolution—instead of struggling for a radical break with all
capitalistic policies at home and abroad; they compromise with the forces of
Imperialism and thus threaten to land the British Labour Movement in an
impasse.

If the
argument is used of non-interference in the affairs of other peoples, then the
question arises: Why the support for the intervention in Korea, why the support for the march into Germany, Italy
and Japan
during the War? This was interference in the language of the powerful arguments
of bayonet and bomb.

But the
argument of a Socialist policy at home and abroad is far more potent.
Assistance by the power of ideas to Socialist forces in all countries struggling
for a Socialist democratic world is a necessity for internationalism.

Need for socialist principles

The one thing
which can be welcomed in the pamphlet, is the call for thorough discussion of
problems of foreign policy. Today, more than ever in the history of mankind,
events, in one country or area of the earth are of direct and immediate
significance to the lives, and conditions of workers in all other parts of the
world. The fate of humanity is linked into one indivisible whole. Put just
because of that, the interests of the workers can be served not by opportunist
adaptation but only by working-class internationalism.

The pamphlet
endeavours to cover itself by arguing on the possibilities of new factors and
divergences without committing itself to fundamental principle. In this it
remains faithful not to socialist principles but to the well-worn “principles”
of the power politics which it professes to abhor.

It goes on to
say…“It is wise to refrain from fixing rigid programmes in foreign policy.”

Naturally,
today’s enemy can be tomorrow’s friend, wicked Germans can be dear allies, dear
Old Joe of the war years becomes a totalitarian tyrant—the depiction (whether
correct or incorrect) all depending on the particular needs and interests of
imperialist power politics at the given time.

However,
after all this the pamphlet proceeds with unconscious humour…“If the
fundamental principles with which a government approaches world affairs are
sound and moral…” then chopping and changing policy according to circumstances
is all right. This is the heart of the question.

What
fundamental principles and what moral approach? There is the
“morality” of capitalist state interests, of which unfortunately this pamphlet
is shot through and through, as the examples given above endeavour to show. On
the other hand there are the fundamental principles of socialism—of what is
right and moral in the interests of the workers; not an imaginary extra-class
morality.

Language of deeds

A preparation
to struggle implacably and resolutely against our enemies at home—the
capitalists, is the first step towards a socialist foreign policy. The language
of deeds speaks louder than the language of nationalistic phrases. The path of
Socialist principle is the only way out of the entangling web with which the
leadership is enmeshing the Party.

“Workers of
all lands unite, you have nothing to lose but your chains, you have a world to
win,” remains not a phrase to be used hypocritically on May Day anniversaries,
but a real guide to a Socialist foreign policy.

But today or
in the coming period it is a question of whether there will be a world to
win—or whether it will be destroyed. Unless the mass of workers in Britain and the
world make internationalism the maxim of their policy the World Labour Movement
will collapse in futility and then ruin.

International
Socialism or Barbarism?—that is the issue to be decided by Labour’s Foreign
Policy.

Notes to
original text:

(*) For
further elaboration on this we would refer the reader to our document
“Stalinism in the Post War World.”[available here]
Price 6d.

Notes:

(1)
We completed the sentence cut by a missing line in the original article.